A body’s location and injuries alone cannot establish track-crossing or exclude accidental falling.

The appellants sought compensation for the death of Rohit Kumar, who allegedly fell from Train No. 54354 while travelling from Babrala to Aligarh on 18 November 2025.

The appellants relied on a common journey ticket, said to have been found in the deceased’s clothing during post-mortem proceedings, and on the evidence of a co-traveller.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the deceased was not proved to be a bona fide passenger and inferring that he had been crossing the tracks when he died.

The appellants challenged that decision under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987

Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger for the purposes of the compensation claim

Whether the deceased’s death resulted from an “untoward incident” within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989

Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 includes the accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers within “untoward incident”.

The appellants had to establish their case on the balance of probabilities, and the precise manner of an accident need not always be proved by direct evidence.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi and Lata v. Union of India, the Court considered the evidence as a whole and held that the ticket’s absence from the initial recovery record was not, by itself, conclusive against the claimants.

Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar supported a beneficial approach to the statutory scheme.

The Court also relied on Anita Devi v. Union of India and Vidhya Ram v. Union of India for the proposition that the body’s location and the injuries, without more, do not establish track-crossing or exclude accidental falling.

The deceased’s father testified that the ticket was recovered from the deceased’s trousers during post-mortem proceedings and handed to him. Although the ticket was absent from the jamatalashi record, the respondent acknowledged its subsequent verification; the Court held that the ticket and the father’s explanation had to be assessed together, rather than treating the omission as decisive.

The co-traveller’s association with the deceased and absence from the initial record did not, by themselves, render the entire claim unreliable.

As to the incident, the body’s location and the extensive injuries were consistent with more than one possible sequence of events. Without independent evidence establishing track-crossing, the Tribunal’s inference was speculative and did not exclude an accidental fall.

It set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and remanded the matter for assessment of compensation in accordance with law, directing disbursement within two months of receipt of the order. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was listed before the Tribunal on 12 January 2027